plan_pipeline

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool judges sufficiency/depth, dispatches skills, and outputs missing info and research questions. However, it does not explain side effects, whether it actually invokes other tools, how depth selection works, or what the returned data structure is. Moderate transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a structured Args block. There is no redundant fluff, and the parameter list is neatly organized. Slight room for improvement in making the prose more formal, but it remains efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter orchestrator with no annotations, no required fields, and no output schema, the description provides basic context — it lists missing info and research questions — but does not explain how parameters combine, what the default 'auto' report_depth implies, or what the agent should do with the results. Adequate but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters in Chinese with human-readable explanations (e.g., has_cnpj as '是否已提供注册号') and enumerates report_depth values (auto/quick/standard/deep). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though some glosses are terse.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's role as master orchestration: it judges information sufficiency, determines investigation depth, dispatches skills, and lists missing information and research questions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like research_company or web_search, which are specific execution steps rather than the central planner.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '总控编排' (master orchestration) role implies it should be invoked early, but the description does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exceptions. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name and role.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.